Ex Parte Yamada et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12563359 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/563,359 09/21/2009
27562 7590 08/02/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oichi Yamada
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MEN-723-2640 6248
EXAMINER
YEN,JASONTAHAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YO I CHI YAMADA, DAIKI IWAMOTO, and SHIROU MOURI
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359 1
Technology Center 3700
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1
and 8-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants:
The present invention relates to a game program and a
game apparatus. More specifically, the present invention relates
to a game apparatus and a game program therefor for which an
object moves along a route designated by a user within a game
space including a first area, such as a floor, a ground or the like
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nintendo Co. Ltd.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
and a second area where continuity of the movement of the object
in the first area is interrupted, such as a wall, another floor or a
ground different in height, or a pond (water surface) or the like.
Spec. 1, 11. 11-16.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 8-16 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed claims and recites:
1. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program so as
to be readable by a computer of a game apparatus, said program
causes said computer to execute instructions comprising:
displaying on a display a game space including a first area
and a second area where continuity of a movement of an object
within said first area is interrupted;
moving said object along a route that a user designates
within said game space while sequentially taking a point position
on said route as a target;
determining whether or not a predetermined area
associated with said object moving along said route, in a case that
said object enters a next point position on said route, enters said
second area over a border between said first area and said second
area;
setting said next point position as a target position when it
is not determined that said predetermined area enters said second
area at said next point position;
correcting said next point position so as to become a target
position within said first area when it is determined that said
predetermined area enters said second area in said next point
position; and
moving said object to said target position.
Appeal Br. 21.
2
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Tsujino2 in view ofDunn. 3
2. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsujino in view of Dunn, Hubrecht,4 and
Hashimoto. 5
DISCUSSION
Appellants raise separate arguments with respect to each of claims 1,
9, 13, and 8. We address each of these claims separately below.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Tsujino discloses a method as claimed except
that "Tsujino does not explicitly disclose a predetermined area being
associated with said object enters the second area over a border," for which
the Examiner relies on Dunn. Final Act. 3---6. The Examiner concludes that
"it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to utilize the collision detection method as taught by
Dunn into the virtual game of Tsujino in order provide game designers a
simple method of collision detection in the virtual space." Id. at 6.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants'
arguments.
2 Tsujino et al., US 2009/0104990 Al, pub. Apr. 23, 2009.
3 Dunn, "2D Game Primer (Visual C#)," http://channel9
.msdn.com/ coding4 fun/ articles/2D-Game-Primer-Visua 1-C (accessed on
Nov. 2, 2011; posted on Feb. 20, 2007).
4 Hubrecht et al., US 2003/0117402 Al, pub. June 26, 2003.
5 Hashimoto, US 2011/0039620 Al, pub. Feb. 17, 2011.
3
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
Tsujino discloses a method in which a player character in a video
game may be navigated around an object when an obstacle lies in the player
character's proposed path, i.e. the path chosen by the game player for the
character. Tsujino determines whether the straight line route to the
destination would encounter an obstacle, and if it would, the path is adjusted
to go around the obstacle. See, e.g., Tsujino i-fi-f 112-113. Dunn teaches that
it was known to determine whether an area enters another area in a game, i.e.
discloses "Simple Collision Detection" in the form of "Checking for
rectangle overlap." Dunn 4.
Appellants first assert that Tsujino accomplishes a route adjustment
by determining if an obstacle exists along a particular route; that Tsujino "is
not determining if a predetermined area associated with a player character
will cross over a boundary between the area in which the player character
can move and an area within the obstacle," and, thus, Tsujino is not setting
or correcting the next point position by determining whether a
predetermined area enters a second area as required by the claim. Appeal
Br. 14. Appellants also argue with respect to Tsujino that:
One of ordinary skill would understand that a route in which a
player character would move does not reasonably correspond to
a predetermined area of the player character. Thus, Tsujino is
only looking to the path of the route to see ifthe character would
encounter an obstacle, not whether a predetermined area
associated with the player character crosses over a boundary of
the obstacle.
Reply Br. 2.
These arguments do not show error in the rejection because, as noted
above, the Examiner acknowledges that Tsujino does not expressly disclose
4
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
determining whether a predetermined area enters second area, and the
Examiner relies on Dunn to cure this deficiency.
Appellants also argue that Dunn fails to cure the deficiency in
Tsujino. Appeal Br. 14--15. Specifically, Appellants argue that Dunn
discloses only making a determination of whether a single sprite or point is
within a particular range and not a determination "if the area of the sprite is
within a second region." Id. at 15. Appellants also assert that a single sprite
or point cannot be understood to correspond to a predetermined area
associated with an object. Reply Br. We are not persuaded. Appellants'
argument focuses on the specific algorithm provided in Dunn of detecting a
collision and ignores the broader concept of determining whether one
rectangle, which may be considered the claimed predetermined area,
overlaps another rectangle, which may be considered the claimed second
area, to determine whether a collision is occurring or will occur. Appellants
have not shown any error in the Examiner's reliance on this concept in the
proposed combination.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner established a prima
facie showing of obviousness with respect to claim 1 without error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejection of independent claims 14, 15, and 16 and dependent
claims 4--7 and 10-12, for which Appellants do not raise separate arguments.
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Appellants argue only that Tsujino does not
correct a route when a predetermined area enters a second area and that
Dunn only detects a collision if a single sprite point satisfies a condition.
Appeal Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded of error for the reasons discussed
5
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 9.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and requires that "said program
causes said computer to further execute instructions comprising setting said
predetermined area with reference to said associated image." Appeal Br. 24.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites "an associated image being
associated with said object is displayed together with said object on said
display." Id.
The Examiner finds that Tsujino discloses setting a predetermined
area with reference to an associated image. Final Act. 7 (citing Tsujino
Fig. 5; i-f 100). Appellants argue that "Tsujino explains that in the
embodiments of the invention, the player symbol 1 and dinosaur symbol 2a
are not actually symbols of the shapes, but rather true representative shapes
using three-dimensional polygon models of the objects" and that "even if
Tsujino employs three-dimensional polygon models of the object, such a
disclosure is not analogous to setting a predetermined area with reference to
the three-dimensional polygon models." Id.
Tsujino discloses:
The player symbol 1 and the dinosaur symbol2a are not
symbols of the shapes shown in FIG. 5 in the embodiments, and
objects with near true representative shapes using the three-
dimensional polygon models of a person (hunter) and a dinosaur
are displayed. When applied to home-use game devices
including a game device using an external monitor and a
portable, small-sized game device, an embodiment may be
employed in which the player can select a display form.
Tsujino i-f 100.
6
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
We are not persuaded of error. The claim requires only that the
predetermined area is set "with reference to said associated image." Tsujino
discloses, with reference to Figure 5, that "a player symbol 1 indicating the
present position of the virtual player ... [is] displayed." That the player
symbol 1, i.e. the associated image, is located at the present position of the
virtual player is enough to show that a predetermined area, i.e. the area of
virtual player, is set with reference to that associated image. To the extent
Appellants are arguing that the size and/ or shape of the associated image
must correspond or match the predetermined area, such an argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. For this reason, we sustain the
rejection of claim 13.
Claim 8
Claim 8 requires determining whether the object arrives at a target
position within a predetermined time and suspending movement of the
object if it does not. See Appeal Br. 23. The Examiner relies on Hashimoto
as teaching the limitations added by this claim. See Final Act. 8-9 (citing
Hashimoto Fig. 7; i-fi-170, 89-90.).
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error by Appellants'
arguments.
Hashimoto describes a method of determining whether an object
arrives at a goal before time expires and indicates that when time expires "an
end process of the game of the stage is performed." Hashimoto Fig. 7; i170.
Appellants acknowledge that "[a ]t best, Hashimoto prevents the player from
advancing in the game if the player has not reached the goal before time
expires." Appeal Br. 19. However, Appellants argue that "[o]ne of ordinary
skill would understanding that ending a level in the game (thereby ending
7
Appeal2013-009030
Application 12/563,359
movement of the player character) does not correspond to suspending
movement of the player character during the game." Reply Br. 5. We
disagree. Appellants acknowledge that Hashimoto teaches ending player
movement when time expires, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the game, and thus player movement, could be restarted.
Thus, Hashimoto at least suggests that ending player movement is only
temporary and may be restarted, i.e. that player movement is suspended. For
this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 8.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1
and 8-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8